111–120 of 163 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true at all. No red paint in it. This has been conclusively, scientifically debunked multiple times.
Please provide sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course they weren’t dumb, but having a great understanding of shadows is a far cry from being capable of creating a photo negative. They didn’t even have the concept of a photo negative. How would they even have thought to achieve such a thing? And for what purpose? And, by the way, the image on the shroud is not made of paint, so contemporary proficiency with painting techniques hardly seems relevant.
Why would they need the specific concept of a photo negative? A negative is just a reversal of light/dark. They knew of such things. They knew primary colors, too. Painting and mixing colors is not exactly modern -- it has been around for many centuries. Artists practice playing with light and color as basic exercises, and have done so for hundreds if not thousands of years. Switching light and dark is a fairly basic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient shroud, you would have to explain how the image on it was produced. Corpses don't leave images on shrouds Well, they have haven’t they? I think you need to put yourself in the shoes of a believing Christian/catholic. There is really no need for them to try and explain scientifically what is explained miraculously. From the miraculous POV the act of resurrection…
You've got the burden of proof backwards there. It is absolutely up to those who claim the shroud is that of Jesus to prove it.
So the burden solely lays at the feet of the unbelievers. They are the ones that have the burden of proof, because until they can truly prove that it’s not what it purports to be, the mystery of it convicts them in their unbelief.
What they said was that it's not fake, but its not exactly real either, in the sense that its not Jesus. What we're seeing is the image of a man who was tortured the way Jesus was said to have been tortured, including the crucifixion. But the man was a crusading Knight, and the authors even think they can name him: Jaques de Molay, commander of the Knights Templar. After being tortured he was wrapped in his linen shroud (one of the few personal possessions that the template owned) and he recovered to be put on trial and ultimately burned at the stake. The shroud was folded up and put away and then he image formed slowly over years, by some chemical process which the authors explained but I can't remember.
This explains the carbon dating and the apparent mystery regarding the details of the crucifixion injuries: traditionally Jesus is depicted with holes in his hands but apparently that does not actually work. The wrists must be nailed instead, as seen in the shroud.
They also claim to have proven that the mans knees were bent as apparently this is the only way to explain the proportions.
I doubt it was a very scientific assessment but it was still fascinating to read.They even claimed that the shroud first appeared in the possession of someone who might have been a relative based on the name (can't remember the details now)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do these conversations inevitably move into insults? As soon as humans get into the subject of belief, someone always says something like “it’s just switching to more fruitful avenues.” If something works for you, that’s great. But why do people automatically say that their way is better? Does being right really matter? We could have a really great world if we’d just let people believe in whatever works for them.
That's not an insult, it's a criticism. The criticism is: your thing is not very good. What you're requesting here is that you should never be told that your thing is not very good. I know the feeling, you're not alone, I, too, hate it when people piss on my strawberries, and sometimes I feel like I have a right to request that they be less negative and more supportive. This is why we have privacy instead of everybod…
It rests entirely on the premise that reason plays no role in the existence or structure of the universe. That, for no reason at all the big bang happened. Then also for no reason at all, the laws of physics permitted the formation of stars, planets, and so on. And then, also for no reason at all, some of that matter became alive. Of course we don’t really know how to define what life even is satisfactorily. And then, still for no reason at all, except apparently some built in drive to replicate (why? No reason of course) that life evolved over billions of years into something that fancies itself rational, for no reason at all.
It’s quite a puzzle!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not an insult, it's a criticism. The criticism is: your thing is not very good. What you're requesting here is that you should never be told that your thing is not very good. I know the feeling, you're not alone, I, too, hate it when people piss on my strawberries, and sometimes I feel like I have a right to request that they be less negative and more supportive. This is why we have privacy instead of everybod…
Which is funny, because atheism is fundamentally and quite literally irrational. It rests entirely on the premise that reason plays no role in the existence or structure of the universe. That, for no reason at all the big bang happened. Then also for no reason at all, the laws of physics permitted the formation of stars, planets, and so on. And then, also for no reason at all, some of that matter became alive. Of cou…
If you can get from deism, based on an argument about order, to belief in Jesus coming back to life and emitting radiation in the process, by a chain of reasoning, then more power to you. I can't imagine what the steps would be, but it's the kind of thing the Scholastics would have done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is funny, because atheism is fundamentally and quite literally irrational. It rests entirely on the premise that reason plays no role in the existence or structure of the universe. That, for no reason at all the big bang happened. Then also for no reason at all, the laws of physics permitted the formation of stars, planets, and so on. And then, also for no reason at all, some of that matter became alive. Of cou…
I like this point. But what's the issue with defining life? I don't mean "which things are hard to categorize", viruses are, but it's beside the point, isn't it? If you can get from deism, based on an argument about order, to belief in Jesus coming back to life and emitting radiation in the process, by a chain of reasoning, then more power to you. I can't imagine what the steps would be, but it's the kind of thing th…
All of the working definitions beg the question in some form or another. And then there's stuff like this[1].
> If you can get from deism, based on an argument about order, to belief in Jesus coming back to life and emitting radiation in the process, by a chain of reasoning, then more power to you.
I can't, and I don't think any reasonable person claims that you can. My view of Christianity is that it is, basically, Greek philosophical monotheism (I'd quibble over "deism," preferring something like "philosophical monism," but it's just a quibble) with some vestigial Hebrew trappings plus historical claims based on testimonial evidence. The resurrection falls squarely in the historical claims area. It's hard to overstate the influence of Greek culture and philosophy on the Mediterranean at the time of Jesus' ministry.
[1] https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/shape-is-not-enough-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, the thing is not a shroud, it's essentially a 14th century painting, created as one of a myriad fake relics for money and fame. Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient shroud, you would have to explain how the image on it was produced. Corpses don't leave images on shrouds, and even if it were true that everyone in ancient Israel were wrapped in a linen shroud when they died, people certai…
> you would have to explain how the image on it was produced It was produced by Jesus Christ at His resurrection. He left it for us to see and ensured that its being set aside was recorded in Scripture (not with the others but rolled up in a separate place - https://biblehub.com/john/20-7.htm ). If you mean "how did Jesus create the image"? Well, I don't know, we can look at the image (as some have) and come up with…
The point I was making there was in response to someone saying that "even if it's a shroud, how do we know it is Jesus's shroud and not some random 1st century burial shroud", and I was explaining that random 1st century burial shrouds obviously don't have images of the dead person on them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, the thing is not a shroud, it's essentially a 14th century painting, created as one of a myriad fake relics for money and fame. Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient shroud, you would have to explain how the image on it was produced. Corpses don't leave images on shrouds, and even if it were true that everyone in ancient Israel were wrapped in a linen shroud when they died, people certai…
Whatever else you might want to say about the shroud, one thing we know for sure is that it is not a painting. Analysis shows that the image is extremely superficial, only penetrating about 200nm into the fibres of the cloth. This is inconsistent with a painted image.
I'd also say that I'm pretty sure the mysteriousness of the technique is way overblown. Sure, we don't know exactly what it was, but there are trace pigments on the cloth, and ~600 years of handling and being displayed without much protection, plus being doused in water ~500 years during a fire, will wash off pigments in ways we can't fully predict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could easily have been sprayed on. This is a common technique done with a mouth tube in older times, a bulb sprayer later and an air brush most recently.
There is nothing on the fibers that is visible under a high powered microscope. Paint (even spray-paint) is quite visibly distinct from the fiber it covers.